NNS,

You wrote to Peter: <<But instead it was an invitation to share a theology that would be bible based. Surely you have studied one of these? Instead of your pet theologies that weaken the foundation of a Christian's faith, and lead nonChristians in a false direction>>

I'm jumping in here. Previously Peter has admitted he follows Karl Barth's theology, which is neo-orthodox. Karl Barth, a Swiss theologian (d. 1968),stated this about Scripture:

"Instead of talking about the “errors” of the biblical authors in this sphere, if we want to go to the heart of things it is better to speak only about their “capacity for errors.” For in the last resort even in relation to the general view of the world and man the insight and knowledge of our age can be neither divine nor even solomonic. But fundamentally we certainly have to face the objection and believe in spite of it!.... But the vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious and theological content" (Church Dogmatics: Doctrine of the Word of God I.2, p. 508).

So, to expect Peter to present a Bible-based theology is to do something that is outside of his theological worldview. Why would he do this if he doesn't believe in sola scriptura

Marty Foord summarised the Reformers understanding of Scripture alone:

"Sola Scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. The Bible ruled reason and tradition because it alone was infallible as God’s word. All other authorities (including church leadership) were fallible and must submit to Scripture." See: http://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-real-meaning-of-sola-scriptura/

To expect Sells to present a Bible-based theology would be like asking a strawberry grower to harvest raspberries

To OzSpen.

Thank you for that heads up on Peter's world view. It doesn't make sense to me though. In one of his articles he is trying to juggle that the bible is inerrant and true in a spiritual sense even if it is made up of both real events and legends made up. But as much as I can't agree with that standpoint, it should still hold the teachings in the bible as from God and hold some theology and study based on those. I honestly thought this could be some common ground based on his comments in the last article he wrote. Or even if he doesn't think the bible can be interpreted by just anyone, then there would be studies based on the church's interpretations of what's in the bible. (Again common ground to at least approach a topic).

To Peter.

Forgive me these intrusions. But you've talked about the different cultures within the church. My hope is to not focus too deeply on the cultures as much as the points that they both hold value to them. Namely your view of theology being an important foundation, and my understanding that the bible should be an important foundation.

With this in mind, I'll continue on in my approach. Explaining a theology of our value to God as a lens to see other parts of the bible.

To Banjo Paterson. Take what I'm trying to share into consideration. After all you present a theory on world views that operates under the basis that world views are all false, (and thus eventually will fall apart under doubt and reveal a great terror of death). The hypothesis behind the theory you present is that biblical world views are false. However you give this view without a test to see if it holds merit. (It is just already assumed to be true and therefore unneeded to be tested).

To Peter.

Continuing on with an understanding of our value to God. Based on the parables already looked into we can understand that God values us enough to celebrate when a lost person can 1) turn from their sins, and 2) Come back to Him. In fact this value can be a lens to look at other scripture through and understand it from the scope of saving the lost.

For example of this, consider Jesus warning in Luke 17:1-4, and the same warning in Mathew 18:6-10. Woe to the person who makes a little one who believes stumble. Saying it would be better to have a millstone (very heavy stone for grinding grains) tied to your neck and downed in the sea then to be a cause to make others stumble. In Luke Jesus continues on to teach that if someone sins against you, to rebuke them, and if they repent of it, forgive them. Even if they do this over and over again in one day. In Mathew, Jesus teaches this lesson to not cause someone to stumble, along side the parable of the lost sheep. He even says to not despise one of these "little ones" because their angel is in the presence of God. So there is some very protective love going on here, like a parent's love. Just as there was the love of celebration in the parable of the lost son by the father in the parable. So also is the same kind of parental love, a protective love, on us as well.

Make note and treat each other as if you're brother and sister and do no harm to each other because it's the same love for your brothers and sisters that your parents have that gets a child in trouble when they mistreat their siblings.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second example of God's love being a redeeming love to save the lost and hold us as valuable treasure can be found by looking at the book of Jonah. In it God sends a reluctant prophet to prophesy against a people who are an enemy of Israel. Instead Jonah runs the opposite direction hoping to not give them any warning land letting the judgment fall on them. What happens next is that God don't allow This prophet to run from the duty He sent Jonah on. Instead God sent a storm that almost drowns Jonah and the ship and crew he rode on to basically show that refusal to bring the message was not an option unless Jonah wishes to die with his choice.

Eventually in the book Jonah goes to the city to preach the coming destruction because of their sins. And guess what? They turn from their sins. That generation is saved., and no harm comes to them. This event (or legend if you can't believe events in the bible) confirms the teachings of Jesus saying that if one lost person repents it is celebrated in heaven more then if 99 righteous people never turn away. God sees this as true even to a people who have been an enemy to Israel. (Going back to other teachings to love your enemy).

To Peter.

Based on OzSpen's explaination of your view of the bible, I can understand that all of this might be new information to you. Things you have not heard, have not studied, or even have not considered. But what I don't understand is why this is new information to you. Why when asked to have a theology that is based on the bible the church theologies that you've studied held up no reply except a complaint on solo-scripture.

Shouldn't the teachings in the bible have a rich history of theologians interpreting the bible and coming to explain what's in the bible? That was your point earlier with you're reply against solo-scripture. Therefore it would only be resonable that by studying the theology as you have you would have studied theologies that are based on the bible. (Because it was the church who interprets the bible and offers the interpretations as theology). Therefore why have you remained silent when I've given you an opportunity to teach a theology that is rooted in what's in the bible? Why is OzSpen's explaination necessary to explain your lack of theology rooted in the bible! It does not make sense. And it makes me think that you need to be taught because your current religous education is lacking a great deal.

Do not take offense to that. Don't you dare! It was you who said that the church interprets the bible for the people. If that is true, then it should be part of theological study to know how the church has interpreted the bible and to have at least a few of the theologies come to mind for someone such as yourself who has presented himself as studied in theology. Not having that element shows a hole in the education of theology that you currently have. We all have more to learn. So don't fight against it. Just do it.

To Peter.

Sorry for pushing you so much on theology. If you want to just talk about the different cultures in Christianity, or on other non theological subjects, I'll try to let you be on that. But I had hope that could be a point of common ground to discuss.